Dataset Information

A survey of patient preferences for oral antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Previous research has demonstrated a correlation among patient preferences, dosing burden, and medication nonadherence, a well-recognized challenge in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to elicit preferences for alternative dosing regimens for oral antihyperglycemic therapies among patients with T2DM and to quantify differences in dosing preferences among patients with different characteristics.

Methods

Preferences for dosing of oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OAD) were evaluated by surveying patients with T2DM in the United States (US). Survey participants were adult US patients with T2DM who were taking no or only 1 OAD and no injectable therapies. Each patient completed a web-enabled discrete-choice experiment (DCE) including a series of 8 pairs of hypothetical OAD profiles. Each profile was defined by reductions in average glucose, dosing schedule (e.g., once-weekly, once-daily, or twice-daily dosing), chance of mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal side effects, frequency of hypoglycemia, weight change, incremental risk of congestive heart failure, and cost. Each participant also answered a direct question about dosing preference. Random-parameters logit was used to analyze the DCE data. Prespecified subgroups were analyzed.

Results

Of 2,262 patients invited to participate, 923 were included in the analysis (mean age 63 years, 45% male, 79% white). Reducing dosing frequency was statistically significantly important to patients; however, it was relatively less important than medication cost or clinical outcomes. On average, patients preferred once-weekly to once-daily dosing. Patients not currently taking an OAD had a stronger preference for once-weekly dosing than patients on treatment (P = 0.012). Patients younger than 45 years had a stronger preference for weekly dosing than older patients (P < 0.075).

Conclusions

For younger patients and patients not currently on treatment, once-weekly dosing may provide additional incentive to initiate and adhere to antihyperglycemic treatment; however, additional research will be required to confirm this hypothesis.

SUBMITTER: Hauber AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4374080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe primary aim of this analysis was to explore whether glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <7%) and the incidence of hypoglycemia are different between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM)-only or insulin-only regimens.MethodsPhysicians in nine Chinese cities completed surveys (Adelphi Real World Diabetes Disease Specific Programme) from October 2011 to March 2012. Key information collected included patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, HbA1c levels, and hypoglycemia incidence. Patients receiving OAM-only (n = 1077) or insulin-only (n = 292) regimens for ≥6 months who had most recent HbA1c results available and measured within 3 months of survey completion were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia. Primary (multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders) and sensitivity analyses (propensity score matching method) were performed.ResultsA higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group achieved glycemic control than patients in the OAM-only group (41.8% vs 35.9%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P = 0.013) better glycemic control than OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.48 [1.09, 2.01]). A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group experienced hypoglycemia (overall) than patients in the OAM-only group (33.3% vs 14.4%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P < 0.001) increased overall hypoglycemia compared with OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.38 [1.72, 3.29]). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary analysis results.ConclusionsThe results of this analysis provide important real-world information on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM, which may be useful for guiding evidenced-based management. Notably, Chinese patients with T2DM receiving OAM-only had poorer glycemic control compared with those receiving insulin-only therapy, although patients receiving OAM-only were less likely to experience hypoglycemic events.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Understanding patient preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications may help explain how the attributes differentially affect patient perceptions and behaviors. In this survey, we quantified the relative preferences among patients in Germany and Spain in separate analyses. METHODS:A stated-preference, discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was designed to elicit preferences for T2DM treatment attributes among patients with self-reported T2DM and who reported being prescribed T2DM medication for > 2 years. Patients recruited from an online national consumer panel completed an online survey. The survey presented choices between eight pairs of hypothetical T2DM treatments defined by seven attributes: chance of reaching target hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level; reduced risk of serious heart attack or stroke; frequency of hypoglycemia; risk of gastrointestinal (GI) problems; weight change; mode of administration (oral or injectable); dosing frequency. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) was defined as the minimum increase in the probability of reaching target HbA1c for which respondents would accept less desirable levels of other attributes. RESULTS:In Germany and Spain, 474 and 401 respondents completed the survey, respectively. DCE analysis showed that risk of GI problems was most important to German respondents. MAB analysis found that respondents would require a 56 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset a change from 0% to 30% risk of GI problems. For Spanish respondents, mode of administration was the most important attribute. These respondents would require a 59 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset moving from oral to injectable medications. CONCLUSIONS:Respondents in Germany and Spain were willing to trade efficacy for improvements in side effects and mode of administration. Given the variety of T2DM medications currently available, the results suggest that careful discussion about patient preferences could help improve patient satisfaction with T2DM treatment.